<<Could it be that the 13 chose the proper paths to follow and determined the justice among the immortals? And could it be that the positive aspects are merely when they choose to follow these rules and the dark aspects are when they choose to break them? And would this mean that it's the paladin's job to follow the 13 "standard" immortals and take the examples of the "positive aspects" as what would be ideal for us and "negative aspects" as what NOT to do?>>

No...Heh let me see if I can explain the problem I see with this. Stating that light = following rules, and dark = breaking the rules puts a value judgement on the positive and negitive aspects of the immortals. The value judgement placed equates to good/bad, right/wrong and good/evil. Immortals in my opinion should not have a value jusdgement placed upon them. Value judgements are created by humankind (bahh and the rest of the 10 races in Elanthia), but humankind in RL. The "justice" of the gods and the proper way to go about this justice is not good, its not bad, it just is what the gods decide on a whim.

I argue this point because in my line of work individuals try to place a value judgement, morality and such on the concepts inherant to evolutionary theory, as well as nature in general. These judgements are man-made and detract from what is really going on. Morality has nothing to do with the natural order, it is a human construct, with bases in animal behavior. Heh I'll stop there...

--Just a Squire

Lennon... you are basing your theories on the assumption that everyone beleives in the theory of Evolution. Now, this isn't the place to get in a debate about evolution... but suffice to say, I disagree with it.

Calemnon

<<I argue this point because in my line of work....>>

Hey I hear you. But let's try and keep the discussion on topic here, let's not digress too far. Nobody is arguing anything in here to prove how what you and I feel in RL is right or wrong. This is all about DR and roleplaying.

If we start taking things said in here personally, or began to draw personal illustrations from what's said, or begin to apply what's said personally, then the whole point of this discussion will go down the tubes. Not suggesting you're doing that just yet, but when you start making direct references to RL, that's just a sign that things are gonna get,...well really personal.

I have been down that road before, and I would like to avoid that. If you'd be interested I wouldn't mind continuing your discussion on Neitzche-like social-phillosophy through email. You seem fairly well-versed, and I think it would be fun and enlightening.

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

Perhaps you misunderstood my original post, Lennon, and perhaps I misunderstood yours.

Here's my though process a bit...

It seems to me that the immortals are a reflection of human nature. Like humans, they have ideals that they strive to follow. But like humans, they fail in achieving these ideals at times, while at other times succeeding.

My theory is that there are really only 13 immortals... the positive aspects are when they are achieving their ideals, while the negative ones are when they fall short. You may not agree to this, but to me it makes sense.

As Aspasia requested that we end the thread, I don't see a problem with that... I'm just tossing out theories and such. I mean nothing personal.

Calemnon

<<It seems to me that the immortals are a reflection of human nature. Like humans, they have ideals that they strive to follow. But like humans, they fail in achieving these ideals at times, while at other times succeeding.>>

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I will try to reitterate my point without using any RL examples so I don't offend anyone...

Value judgements, in my belief, are as you stated a "reflection of human nature". Immortals, on the other hand, in my opinion, are not reflections. Immortals were there before humans existed and immortals will be there after humans cease to exist. Placing constructs on them that state when they break their laws or when they follow their laws places a judgement on them that stems from human nature. Now if as you say immortals are a "reflection of human nature" then that means that immortals are made in the image of humans, and not vice versa. Humans, in fact, if you believe in teology are created in the immage of the immortals and are therefore reflections of their nature. For us to be arrogant enough to state they are reflections of us, rather than the opposite, to me is rediculous.

In Lennon's view there is only one true immortal anyway. S/he operates the way s/he wishes, and need not explain. Nor should s/he be judged by Elanthian-kind as going against or with any "moral" code. Morality is a human construct, s/he is beyond that otherwise s/he wouldn't be an immortal...

I mean, nor have I meant anything personal against you in my posts. However, you offered your view and I am offering mine.

--Just a Squire

<<What I have done is attempt to connect IG discussion to RL information. Like it or not the views expressed on these boards are based on RL experiences and perspectives. We can argue theoretical mumbo jumbo all day within the context of Elanthia, but that gets us nowhere, especially since Elanthia is biased towards the viewpoints of everyone who plays it.>>

Well, are our views about RL any less biased? You can reference all the facts in RL that supposedly support your views of DR all you want, but you need to realize something. Everyone has their own opinion on where the facts lie in RL too. Everyone has their own interpretation. So you see bringing in RL issues, doesn't help build your case, it just serves to complicate the discussion and to cause people to react much more personally to what is said.

<<Viewpoints that stem from RL experience. Drawing RL examples in order to help others understand IG positions is not baiting and expounding "the virtues" of my RL views.>>

Right, but two different subjects. One point is that RL issues, should be kept to a scant minimum, or better still, never used. The other is I think you baited him in your earlier post. I wasn't drawing cause and effect between these two points.

<<Its simply explaining a view. Again you added a value judgment to my argument. Not once did I say my views are virtuous and right and yours are wrong. All I did was explain how I see value judgments on ANYTHING as being man made and not an inherent part of that thing >>

Well, yes, we as enlightened individuals do tend to value certain opinions over others. In a sense, value judgments are just important as opinions, without personal judgment, how are we going to sort through the bombardment of views that we hear every day. And let's not be so naive as to assume that every view spoken is always right or true. Many views are mutually exclusive, thus, IMO, making it impossible for everyone to be right at the same time.

Obviously you believe you're right, nothing wrong with that at all. I personally believe that people who don't have an opinion have no business opening their mouths. And as I define it, an opinion is one's stated belief about the truth. So I don't believe any criticism rests in the fact that you or I may believe we're right and others wrong, criticism, I think, should rest in how you treat those who do. But I digress...

The point is, I don't think it was necessary or appropriate to bring up Darwinism, when this theory is completely irrelevant and nonexistent in DR. Whatever points you are trying to make with it, are undermined by the fact that not everyone is going to share the same opinion on where the evolutionary facts lie, or even share similar views on the subtle nuances of Darwinism. No matter how draconian the objections to your views may seem, arguing about Darwinism only serves to complicate the discussion. It's for this very reason, that many times, I don't believe we should be brining up RL issues on the boards. The topic of this folder is PALADINS AND THE GODS THEY SERVE, not DARWINISM AND THE VIEWS WE HOLD. Which is what this discussion will eventually break down into, especially when the majority of the point, you're trying to make, is backed up by it.

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

<<The point is, I don't think it was necessary or appropriate to bring up Darwinism, when this theory is completely irrelevant and nonexistent in DR. Whatever points you are trying to make with it, are undermined by the fact that not everyone is going to share the same opinion on where the evolutionary facts lie, or even share similar views on the subtle nuances of Darwinism. No matter how draconian the objections to your views may seem, arguing about Darwinism only serves to complicate the discussion. It's for this very reason, that many times, I don't believe we should be brining up RL issues on the boards. The topic of this folder is PALADINS AND THE GODS THEY SERVE, not DARWINISM AND THE VIEWS WE HOLD. Which is what this discussion will eventually break down into, especially when the majority of the point, you're trying to make, is backed up by it.>>

Actually, I brought up the concept of evolutionary theory, Darwinisim is but one subset of it, but I digress...

If you see bringing up salient outside examples to explain a position as confusing and unecessary then thats your problem. To me using information we have in our repetoire to help explain or expand a point is the esscence of teaching. Using examples and different points of perspective is, to me, the only way to back up an opinion. An opinion, or debate is worthless if it resides only in the mind of an individual.

--Just a Squire

<<Darwinism or evolutionary theory, is nonexistent in DR, therefore any point you're trying to make quickly becomes irrelevant or at least a huge stretch. Such topics as light and dark, morality, honor, virtue, these ideas all have close parallels in RL. Evolutionary theory doesn't.>>

Darwinism no, evolutionary theory yes. If indeed Elanthian society is based on the Medieval time frame of RL society then yes constructs of evolution were around then. These concepts extend back to Aristotle and Socrates, and possibly before that. Just because it has never been mentioned by a GM or a book, does not mean it doesn't exist, or that people hadn't thought about it...But again I digress...

Again, my point is not about evolutionary theory. I simply used an example to back up an argument I had. I used an outside example as an attempt to put everyone else on the same page where I was coming from. For me to simply throw out my opinion without attempting to explain it is pointless. Additionally, to try to explain it in Elanthian terms, when in fact the concepts I was talking about have not been explained in Elanthian terms before is also pointless...Never did I try to say "take this example as "gods" truth and turn away from your heathen ideas." I simply explained my ideas...

--Just a Squire

<<1. Elanthian society is BASED off of Medieval Europe, yet it is NOT Medieval Europe. Important distinction here. I feel that we should freely delve into the precedents of Medieval Europe to gain clarification and understanding with regard to existing issues and ideas used within DR. However I draw the line at adding, constructing or inventing new un-introduced concepts into DR, despite how we feel about their relevance. Sources should be used for clarification and aid in understanding difficult issues. Sources should not be used to justify our own views of how DR should be.>>

I am highly confused by this statement. If were are to feel free to delve into the precidents of Medieval Europe, how is it you draw the line with my arguments? Please see below for continued explaination...

<<2. If we understand that Evolution is .... A.Not an existent theory in Elanthia B.Not an existent theory in Medieval Europe. Then we come to the conclusion that it has no relevance to our Role-playing world, here.>>

A) non existant by whos ideals? Are we only to believe in things that GM's tell us we are to believe in? All the necessary components to wax philisophical about the nature of being, how there can be so many thousands of forms of organism in the environment are part of Elanthian society...

B) Evolution was a known concept in Medieval Europe. However, what was not known was the "how" organisms actually evolved. What was missing were the concepts of natural selection, gene theory and the hundreds of other "selections" that are part of evolution.

<<3. The constructs you speak of, supposedly inherent in the works of the ancient Greek philosophers, and also mentioned quite a bit by Freidrich Neitzche, are merely shadows of Social Construct Theories, I.E....the evolution of society, not of the human genome. Let's not confuse physical evolution, with social evolution. Two different disciplines, Anthropology and Sociology.>>

Actually, this is only partly true. The ancient Greek philosophers ascribed the many forms of animals and the variation within them to the concept of evolution. They believed that all organisms strove to be the best they could and as such evoloved to better forms. Evolution, by our modern understanding involves gene theory. However, evolution as a concept, as the change of organisms was around thousands of years prior. Please, you don't want to argue with me on these points as a relatively large portion of my training has been on the orgins of evolutionary (not Darwinian) thought...As far as "physical and social evolution" goes, they rely on many of the same mechanisms, and in fact compliment each other in many ways...

This is a pointless discussion...A) I used an outside example to accentuate my point of view. B) This construct of "evolution" was around thousands of years ago. C) Elanthian society is not some static thing that only allows new concepts in it when GM's send out a declairation. D) All neccesary elements for Elanthian scholars to ponder the existance of an evolutionary force exists in the society. E) My original argument wans not even about evolutionary theory! It was as to how placing a value judgement on something that was neither by definition moral or immoral was rediculous. Morality is something we create. I mentioned my area of study (evolutionary theory) because value judgements are things I have to deal with day in and day out. I mentioned this to let the original poster know where I was coming from, and to let him know that this is something that is very salient to me. The concept of evolutionary theory was not the basis of my argument. Go reread it, because I think you missed the point entirely...

--Just a Squire

<<E) My original argument wans not even about evolutionary theory! It was as to how placing a value judgement on something that was neither by definition moral or immoral was rediculous. Morality is something we create. I mentioned my area of study (evolutionary theory) because value judgements are things I have to deal with day in and day out. I mentioned this to let the original poster know where I was coming from, and to let him know that this is something that is very salient to me. The concept of evolutionary theory was not the basis of my argument. Go reread it, because I think you missed the point entirely...>>

I will admit we did go off on a huge bunny trail. Let's toss aside Evolution for the moment. As I said before the problem with your point of view here is that it is inherently presumptuous. You're basis for you view, value judgments cannot be made on things which are neither moral or immoral, is flawed in a couple areas. First of all you're already assigning value judgments to begin with. You're saying we can't place a value judgment on A. Because A is neither value B nor value C. You're already presuming that A is beyond value judgment.

Where I'm coming from is that I'm saying "who says A is beyond value judgment? Why are we presuming this?" I'm not completely nixing your opinion here, indeed I think it's a viable method to view the gods, I, like yourself, am merely suggesting possibilities. Especially the possibility that there may be a higher standard or higher law in the DR universe than just the gods or mortals. That their may exist a transcendent view of right and wrong for all beings, be they mortal or immortal. And by this standard or law, we can draw value judgments for all beings.

Thanks as allways,

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

Good post Starsha,

Her point that what the "dark gods embrace" is seen as immoral by others is precisely my point. If we are to believe that the gods are the rulers of Elanthia, and that it is their sense of "justice", "morality", and action that dictates what is right and good, any judgement we make about their actions is a unnecessary value judgement. The gods, by nature, do what they want, not because it is right or good for humankind (incorporating all the races), but because its what they want to do.

as far as your post Brittany:

<<First of all you're already assigning value judgments to begin with. You're saying we can't place a value judgment on A. Because A is neither value B nor value C. You're already presuming that A is beyond value judgment.>>

Explain to me how statting that we should not place a value judgement on the actions of the gods, is itself a value judgement, it is the complete opposite. I won't place a judgement on the gods, because I am but a mortal. My sense of what is right and good is inherantly different from theirs, because I cannot begin to comprehend their sense of these constructs.

--Just a Squire

<<If we are to believe that the gods are the rulers of Elanthia, and that it is their sense of "justice", "morality", and action that dictates what is right and good, any judgment we make about their actions is an unnecessary value judgment.>>

Of course I could not disagree with the way you framed this statement Lennon. If we are to believe they dictate what morality is, then yes, any judgment would be irrelevant.

However I challenge that view.

I don't believe they dictate what is moral or good, of course their is nothing wrong or outlandish with this view if you characters choose to follow it, I just personally think it's a stretch.

And it leads to inconsistencies.....

Why have rules of honor and virtue, if what each god teaches is truly moral? If Damaris is merely teaching his own form of true morality, then why does the guild forbid stealing? Why does the guild forbid acts of treachery and murder? Surely their are gods who advocate these deeds, and teach highly dubious forms of morality. This particular view (what each god says is moral is truly moral) seems undermined by the fact that our guild espouses and enforces a universal sense of morality itself. By it's rules it tells our characters, that certain gods are indeed incorrect, that their does exist a higher understanding of virtue and honor that transcends the gods themselves. Therefore we cannot steal, therefore we cannot murder, therefore we cannot commit acts of treachery as many of the dark gods do.

<<Explain to me how stating that we should not place a value judgment on the actions of the gods, is itself a value judgment, it is the complete opposite.>>

What, exactly, is the opposite of a value judgement?

Perhaps I'm approaching this statement from an incorrect vantage point, let me better explain what I was thinking. I assumed you were denying the existence of moral distinctions, and then claiming that the gods existed beyond the same moral distinctions you claimed did not exist. (Obvious double-talk) That you were claiming it was "immoral" to place a label of morality on the gods. (obvious contradiction) If I read too much into your post, I apologize.

But I would like to suggest that if there is no true morality, then there should be nothing wrong or immoral about labeling the gods as evil or good.

<<I won't place a judgment on the gods, because I am but a mortal. My sense of what is right and good is inherently different from theirs, because I cannot begin to comprehend their sense of these constructs.>>

Indeed I think you would have a strong point here if the gods of DR were portrayed to be All-knowing and All-powerful.

However they are not.

The gods themselves have different views and different opinions, the teachings of the gods are many times mutually exclusive. My point is that there is a basis and precedent of assuming that the gods comprehension of right and wrong are not so far beyond our ability to grasp. Ultimately the issue boils down to how we interpret the IG sources and how we choose to RP our characters. While I don't think this particular view of the gods is unreasonable, personally I would disagree with it. And that's really the reason for my posts, to explain how and why I disagree.


Thanks for your time,

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)

I have to agree with Aspasia...

Calemnon

<<I don't believe they dictate what is moral or good, of course their is nothing wrong or outlandish with this view if you characters choose to follow it, I just personally think it's a stretch.>>

Thats the whole issue here. What morality is. As a mortal what gives us the right to decide that the gods are behaving in either an evil or a good manner? Morality is a human construct. When I stated that the gods know what is moral and good, I misspoke my explaination. What I meant was that the gods do what the gods do. Humankind in their arrogance label these actions as being"good" or "evil", when in esscene they are neither, they just are.

<<Ahy have rules of honor and virtue, if what each god teaches is truly moral? If Damaris is merely teaching his own form of true morality, then why does the guild forbid stealing? Why does the guild forbid acts of treachery and murder? Surely their are gods who advocate these deeds, and teach highly dubious forms of morality. This particular view (what each god says is moral is truly moral) seems undermined by the fact that our guild espouses and enforces a universal sense of morality itself. By it's rules it tells our characters, that certain gods are indeed incorrect, that their does exist a higher understanding of virtue and honor that transcends the gods themselves. Therefore we cannot steal, therefore we cannot murder, therefore we cannot commit acts of treachery as many of the dark gods do.>>

As I said I misspoke what I was attempting to say (blame it on fatigue, low blood sugar or whatever you wish). The universal sense of "morality" that our guild espouses is indeed a man-made construct, yet it is supported by the gods because it doesn't go against their own ideals. I have two ways of viewing the Paladins guild in reference to the gods, based on if you believe in the 13 as seperate entities, or if you believe in the All-god. As seperate entities there is no one god who is in charge of the other gods. Each has their own say in the way things work in the world. In reference to the Paladin, a guild which is supposed to uphold the human concept of what is moral, those gods aligned with this viewpoint outweigh the gods that are not alligned with this viewpoint. Indeed if we look at the attributes of the seperate immortals those who are in agreement with the traits making up human morality outweigh those who are against. This is my perception as to why certain behaviors are frowned upon by the gods when commited by Paladins.

As far as a belief in the All-god goes my perception is that s/he is a rather fickle individual, yet when combined together the different aspects of this immortal allign more closely to the human construct of "morality" than those things that go against the morality. Of course

<<What, exactly, is the opposite of a value judgement?>>

Acceptance? Understanding that not everything in existance has to be black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. The understanding that some things just are and judgement shoudl not be placed upon them.
Since I'm not allowed to use an example from RL let me try a DR one.
Leucros are big mean viscious wolves. In their natural habitat they actively attempt to kill Inkhorn, or pretty much anything that would happen by. Is the Leucros action immoral? Now apply that to two humans placed in the same situation as the leucro and Inkhorn. Is it inherantly immoral for one human to kill another? If so what are the things that make it so? I could use many many RL contexts and constructs to help explain this point better, but am not allowed too =P

<<Perhaps I'm approaching this statement from an incorrect vantage point, let me better explain what I was thinking. I assumed you were denying the existence of moral distinctions, and then claiming that the gods existed beyond the same moral distinctions you claimed did not exist.>>

Let me stop you there. I don't deny the fact that moral distinctions exist. But what I do deny is that moral distinctions are a naturaly occuring phenomena. Moral distinctions exist in the mind of humans, not in reality.

<<But I would like to suggest that if there is no true morality, then there should be nothing wrong or immoral about labeling the gods as evil or good.>>

Morality inherantly places a value judgement on a behavior. I never stated it was immoral to do so (nice try there), What I did say is its rather arrogant to do so, especially when the behavior, as in the case of gods, is not fully understood.

<<Indeed I think you would have a strong point here if the gods of DR were portrayed to be All-knowing and All-powerful.
However they are not.>>

What is this based on? How do you know if they are omnicient or omnipotent? Sure I don't know for a fact they are, but you don't know for fact they are not...They are after all gods and beyond our comprehension...

--Just a Squire

I beleive that morality is not made by humans, be enforced on them by something greater than the 13.

It's been proven that the gods aren't omniponent by the fact that they couldn't kill the World Dragon. So they've already been proven to be flawed.

Calemnon

<<I beleive that morality is not made by humans, be enforced on them by something greater than the 13.>>

Heh interesting idea. This is based on what?

<<It's been proven that the gods aren't omniponent by the fact that they couldn't kill the World Dragon. So they've already been proven to be flawed.>>

The world dragon was created by a god (most likely Huldah) as an attempt to bring about the end of Elanthia. The dragon was made to such perfection that it was almost unbeatable, even by the gods. Yet the dragon was beat down and put to sleep by Phelim as it slunk away, and then cast into the center of Elanthia as a means to keep Elanthia alive.

Based on these facts the immortals seemed to do pretty well against the dragon, it was decided to cast the dragon inside of Elanthia in order to keep Elanthia alive, as the dragon had all but killed the world. Had they actually found a way to kill it Elanthia would have died as well...Seems a pretty bright decision to keep the dragon alive to me.

-- Just a Squire

<<All-powerful is infinitely more times more powerful than "near-perfect." If the gods were all-powerful, they'd have snapped their fingers and the dragon would no longer exist. They'd then do another snap and everything he did would be reversed, or just snap and keep the world alive by their own almighty power.
They are flawed, because they could not do this.>>

LOL how can one argue with such logic?

--Just a Squire

>>All-powerful is infinitely more times more powerful than "near-perfect." If the gods were all-powerful, they'd have snapped their fingers and the dragon would no longer exist. They'd then do another snap and everything he did would be reversed, or just snap and keep the world alive by their own almighty power.

Pesdo-Philosphical thought for the day:

If God is all-powerful, can he create a pie so big He cannot eat it?

~SC and player of

<<If God is all-powerful, can he create a pie so big He cannot eat it?>>

Of course not because if he did that he could just make himself a bigger stomach to finish it off ::coughs::

--Just a Squire

<<Lennon, sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I read through all the posts and have some brief comments.>>

Thats OK I have enjoyed the break...

<<Regardless how you want to classify them, the point is the gods are not-error free beings. If that is the case then they do not deserve all-consuming and unquestioned faith and trust. Therefore I contend it is of profound importance that our characters discern for themselves what the value of each god is. Who they think is worthy of following, worthy of listening too.>>

My debate has never been that the immortals are perfection incarnate, however I still contend that they are beyond our man-made morality, and inherantly neither good nor evil.

<<To do this, guess what you'll need to do, make value judgments. You can argue about, rights, or arrogance, but the fact of the matter remains. Only an ignorant unenlightened mind would put blind faith in something that was imperfect, and prone to error.>>

This constitutes all religion then...

<<It would be very convenient to live one's life free from the burden of having to make value judgments. To simply say "well who's to say what's right and wrong to begin with?". But the world is such a place, that simply denying or painting over issues of morality, or even refusing to make value judgments can have disastrous consequences. A certain W.W.II dictator comes to mind here.>>

No RL examples please...WWII is not a part of Elanthian life...

<<You can continue to assert your points over and over. But we're just gonna keep running around in circles. I contend it is not merely a human construct, but like I said before, a natural distinction which would exist without the mind of humans to comprehend it. In another time and another world, I contend that even intelligent alien life forms would have a similar understanding of right and wrong.>>

Unfortunately, I could bring forth RL examples of how there is much variablity in concepts human moralities. But alas, last time I did so I was drug off on a tangent about how I can't use RL examples...

<<The problem I see repeated over and is that you're lumping all the beliefs of the gods into one pile. You're denying the fact that even the gods, most likely, make moral distinctions about each other. So you see if you are to call value judgments arrogant and irrelevant, then would you're character be content to call Chadatru's value judgements about Botolf arrogant and irrelevant? If yes, is he not making a value judgment here as well?>>

I never stated that the immortals don't make value judgements about each other. I have always contended that the immortals have their own concepts of justice and morality. However, they are also known to each other. They are equal to each other, and they are the creators of the rest of us underlings. Their constructs of morality are going to be different from ours, because we cannot necessarily understand them.

<<I contend that Chadatru would indeed consider Botolf and Damaris to be evil, would he not? Are you going to deny that even the gods do not see distinctions of morality? Then how do you explain away our guilds divine calling to combat "darkness"? However you want to define "darkness" you cannot deny that it is intrinsically a value judgment itself.>>

Again, Chadatru might see them as evil. However, has Chadatru ever stated to humankind that Boltof is evil? He might also see boltof as doing what Boltof has to do to accomplish certain goals. A behavior by itself is not evil or good, the outcome is...

<<While I agree not everything should be privy to black and white judgment; I contend that some things should be. I'm neither naive enough to believe the world is total black and white, nor dilluded enough to think the world is one huge shade of gray. I believe in a universal sense of right and wrong. however do I think this sense of right and wrong was meant to be applied to everything? No. Their are plenty of gray areas, but also there is also Black and White too.>>

Give me an example of black and white, with no contextual intermediary...

<<Agreed that some value distinctions are irrelevant and out of place, but not all, especially when dealing with intelligent sentient mortals. Animals are one thing, people are another. Greater wisdom and intelligence, necessitates greater responsibility. One could forgive a man who did not know another person was drowning just behind them. However, if he fails to help that man when he knows he's drowning,, then that makes him immoral.>>

Unfortunately people are subject to the same environmental (internal and external) forces as all other animals, and as such I don't see much of a distinction between their and our behavior. Why is it you decree that intelligence necessitates responsibility? Is this some part of natural morality? How do you define intelligence?

<<Labeling something as arrogant is itself a value judgment, is it not? If you're going to deny this, then you'll have to ask yourself if it's fine and no different to be arrogant as it is to be humble. You're simply replacing one value judgment for another. >>

I agree it is a value judgement to label someone as arrogant. However, we have a clear cut concept of what arrogance is. Unfortunately, for the issue of morality we do not, we have differences of opinion as to what morality is. I doubt theres much variation in what marks arrogance.

<<This is the point I'm trying to make, the more you attempt to avoid judgments, the more you wind up making. :) Value judgments are an inherently natural and unavoidable. Sometimes we like to make ourselves feel justified and superior in our decisions by trying to convince ourselves that we're not making value judgments, but in the end we are really just deluding ourselves.>>

Nice attempt at a cut. I never stated that I dn't make value judgements. I stated that in regards to questioning a gods actions and labeling them by OUR standards is arrogant and a worthless value judgement. I will bring in an outside example since you decided you were allowed too...Infanticide: In a many cultures there is known infanticide to occur. The majority of "civilized" Western cultures see this as being barbaric and immoral. However, within these cultures there has been a consistant relationship between those who engage in these behaviors, and certain environmental factors, such as, reproductive potential and cost for raising males vs. females, social structure of the society, socio economic status (measured as either money, or other sought-after posessions), number of other childeren in the family, fathers status, as well as a whole slew of other variables. In these societies no one thinks it is immoral to commit infanticide, in fact in many cases there are infanticidal rituals that are engaged in depending on context. Yet when we look to the majority of western cultures we gasp in horror when we hear of such acts. From a strickly naturalistic perspective, this behavior is not good or bad. From the moral standards of Western societies this behavior is heinous. But when we really break down the behaviors and study them in the light of ::gasp:: evolutionary theory these behaviors make sense for the contextual situation in which those societies vs. our society find themselves. I won't go on from there. If you want to hear more about this feel free to email me at my play.net addy...Suffice to say morality is not as cut and dry as you would like to think. You may still argue that this is immoral behavior, would you say the same thing about non-human animals that engage in such behavior? I am not in any way shape or form advocating infanticide, in fact I am among the "moral" majority that thinks its a heinious act. However, the difference is I understand some of the underlying contexts that causes it. To my sense of morality yes I place a judgement on it. However, I also understand that this judgement is confined to my sense of morality, and its not inherant in the action itself.

<<If you read one part of my post, read this. This is very important. The question shouldn't be whether it is right to make value judgments about the immortals (heh, stills sounds like a contradiction to me), it should fall on what are the correct value judgments to make. Mortals can make judgments and still be fair. Let's not convince ourselves that ALL judgments ALL the time are unfair, irrelevant or arrogant. That strikes me as rather arrogant itself.>>

Just as with my above example the vast majority will not understand the behaviors of the individual. The whole point I have been trying to make, and am going to state here then never answer this thread again was: That behaviors themselves are not moral or immoral. The value judgement we place on them due to our own concepts of morality are the only things that define the action. The behavior just is...

<<ps. No, it is not inherently immoral for one human to kill another. It is inherently immoral for one human to MURDER another. Big difference. >>

Are you basing this on the legal sense or the moral sense? From a moral viewpoint I don't see a distinction...

--Just a Squire